By Naked CIO, 21 September 2008 08:00
COMMENT
Though intrigued by virtual worlds and social networking, the Naked CIO says they won't take off for businesses. Here's whyÂ…
At a recent golfing outing I found myself paired with a software salesman from a company that develops 'virtual worlds'. I then reviewed silicon.com to find a CIO Jury, which discussed social networking possibilities within the IT field.
Exclusive column: The Naked CIO
See what this CIO really thinksÂ…
Naked CIO: Meet the IT guy
Naked CIO: Fishing for data
The Naked CIO: The great recovery disaster
The Naked CIO: Best backgrounds for CIOs?
The Naked CIO: Why boards get IT spend so wrong
The Naked CIO: Tech's weasel words
The Naked CIO: Poisoned BlackBerrys
The Naked CIO: Enemies of the state
Not long ago I also read an article about the CIA developing a social networking virtual world program to allow its employees to share intelligence information in a more proactive fashion.
I have watched over the years as videoconferencing, unified messaging and other collaborative technologies have been touted but never delivered. By that I mean they failed to create a technology platform that business has bought into as a collaborative tool set.
I have also been sceptical of Second Life as a strong business commerce, marketing and sales platform - and believe I have been proven right as it has evolved into a much more juvenile application for interaction.
But am I wrong? Can social networking principles and virtual world technology combine to create a collaboration platform where other initiatives have failed?
I listened closely as my golf partner described how photorealistic virtual worlds of collaboration created an almost real dynamic of emotions and actions that could parallel a boardroom atmosphere.
The concept of social networking within a company is certainly appealing. Wouldn't it be great if problems could be solved in real-time by people in different buildings, departments and geographic locations in a seamless and collaborative manner?
I question, though, how you manage the difference between gimmick and effective collaboration.
In the end I do not believe this form of collaboration will work where the rest have failed. The reason is the same as with every other promising collaborative technology: technophobes (many of whom lurk in boardrooms) will never adopt this alien technology.
The old guard simply still prefers pen and paper, or face-to-face communication. How can you convince someone who mistrusts technology to run their meetings and collaborative initiatives within a digital environment?
As much as I am interested in virtual worlds and will keep an eye on them - like I have with every other technology that professes to improve business collaboration - I will not invest in an idea that I do not believe any of the leaders of my organisation will embrace.
There remain only three technologies I have seen that have successfully transcended this most difficult area: Lotus Notes, Microsoft Exchange and the BlackBerry. Perhaps for the next generation it will be virtual worlds, unified messaging or even the iPhone.
I will wait and see.
Comments
There are 6 comments. Join the discussion
1. rightasrain
While I am sure your snappy headline about virtual worlds disappearing is wrong (although it did get me to read your piece!), I think your points about business collaboration are absolutely right. We (Rezzable) create and operate the largest areas in SL now and find that the teamwork aspects are much less efficient inworld than via skype, email and basecamp.
The potential is significant for 3D web, but I personally think the opportunity is for entertainment and knowledge sharing (ie more engaging wikipedia type information discovery).
The current state of play in SL is way too limited for serious business. The avatars are not dramatic enough--it is like a puppet show level. There is no useful facial expressions to convey serious matters. For sure, video on skype or other type of desktop video sharing is more effective. PLus enterprise level service agreements and security are non-existant in SL.
Linden Labs, imho, is really just a research group and they are messing around with a lot of 3D web elements. They hit a goldmine on selling "virtual land" which really is a bubble (but I guess there are plenty of people who don't see that yet). They run close to 70,000 concurrent log-ons, but only 60 people can share an experience at the same time. So the main point is being able to use your inventory across a lot of areas. When someone solves that problem from a web perspective the entire reason for SL will vaporize. The promise of a virtual economy is also empty, actually it is also unneeded as paypal and other micropayment systems can/could easily integrate.
Net net--virtual worlds will morph toward 3D web entertainment and become a more easily accessed piece of the overall web.
2. rightasrain
ooo...and we made a list awhile ago for what Enterprises might need in SL
(mainly they need a lot of patience)
3. anonymous
With 25 years inthe inductry perhaps I am one of the older generation but with three MSN & Mobil junkie kids I like to think I am connected to the new generation. Experience has taught me several things (1) there are more hyped technologies than adopted technoliogies (2) early adopters often dont experience the benefit first clained and (3) second or third generation technology is when there is mass, if any, adoption.
As an implementer of dial-up corporate email I can recall convincing the board that it was necessary but in retrospect I was pushing at an open door (1995). Had I tried to sell them a whole company adoption for £1m then it would never have got off the ground so the lesson may be to start small.
I've also implemented multi-point video conferencing and point-to-point IPT-videophone and that worked but only to a degree.
There is nothing that can replace the immediacy of a telephone conversation for quick questions/updates or a face-to-face meeting for a couple of hours even if that means some attendees travelling for 24-hrs to make the meeting.
As for the future, the art of communication will undoubtedly advance and be supported by improving technology but I just cant see photo-realistic techno-generated characters creating the same level of communication value.
Hopefully I will be here in 2050 to see if I was right.
4. simondelliott
Ive just read this article and …. this point of view is totally out of date.
The author of this article says that there are only three successful collaboration technologies that penetrate the boardroom Lotus Notes, Microsoft Exchange and the BlackBerry.
He has omitted the Internet, the penetration of which is so complete that it is easy to overlook it. If you include it, you will see that it shows the results of many millions of different collaborations using tools like wordpress, joomla, svn and good old notepad.
The generation of people who make the 99% of this content not only reject playing golf as a way to communicate, but they also reject the notion of a boardroom.
The exclusive and location static nature of the “boardroom and golf” means of communication is in comparison to the “basecamp and msn” form of communication, far slower, which all things being equal places the boardroom style of business at a commercial disadvantage.
If the author of this article is looking to the future of business, then he (Im guessing he is a he) should be looking to the technologies that are going to replace the boardroom not those that are going to get past its security coded doors for the short time that it still exists.
I do enjoy golf
5. Chris Sawyer
Let's not forget the dinosaurs doubtless thought the meteor hurtling towards earth was little more than a pretty light in the sky.
I've no idea who your CIO is but he (definitely not she) is clearly old school and clearly on the way down, rather than up.
Therefore it's hard to take seriously such a one-sided analysis.
Look no further than: "At a recent golfing outing I found myself paired with a software salesman from a company that develops 'virtual worlds'..."
That sentence couldn't be more telling if it said: "I'm old and stuck in my ways and change within my business happens at the speed Microsoft dictates because I'm pretty much treading water here, claiming a wage, reducing my golf handicap and delivering nothing of value."
They may not be right either but it would be more interesting to hear from people using innovative technologies and sharing best practise and common mistakes. The naysayers add little value to the discussion or your publication.
My company has run trials using Second Life. It wasn't without a few hiccups and a LOT of education for people of your CIO's generation/mindset but it was definitely worthwhile and will definitely feature again in future projects.
6. anonymous
It's noteworthy that IBM's CEO Sam Palmisano has made one, and just one, appearance in Second Life. How much profit has IBM made from virtual worlds? This would be an intriguing question for a stockholder to ask at next year's AGM.
For me, the 3D Internet is no more compelling than the 3G video cellphone. It sounded like a nice idea before we had it, but after using it for a bit, we largely prefer to switch it off and return to more traditional tools.